Politicians are in power to serve the people

Since Anglo-Saxon times, the Monarch has been required to rule for the benefit of the people. As with our law, our democracy is based on consent and has been evolutionary. Its genius is that as individual sovereignty replaced that of the monarch, the monarchy became the repository of the people's sovereignty. The people are sovereign and lend their power to elected representatives who, after serving for a period, return it to them. The people then elect new representatives. If a government falls, the Monarch acting for the sovereign people dissolves parliament. This returns power to the people.

The fact that sovereignty is returned to the people after each loan period guarantees democracy. This contract is underpinned by the knowledge that no parliament can bind its successor and that our power will always be returned to us. Or so we thought.

In August 1961, Harold McMillan announced that the UK was applying to join the Common Market. Most MPs cheered when he declared, "We shall not take the final step unless our Commonwealth and other obligations can be reconciled, for otherwise the loss would be greater than the gain." That promise did not fool Anthony Fell, Yarmouth's Tory MP who said. "His decision to gamble with British sovereignty, and with 650 million people in the British Commonwealth, is the most disastrous thing any Prime Minister has done for many generations past." McMillan's gamble was thwarted by deGaulle.

That did not stop the plan and Ted Heath finally succeeded in 1973. We now know that Heath's government had been told that the Common market was intended to become a sovereign state and that its sovereignty would irreparably damage that of the UK. So stark was the warning that they were advised to "... preserve the illusion that the British government was still sovereign, for this century at least - by which time it would no longer be possible for us to leave."

Heath and his compatriots, including Labour and Liberal MPs deliberately and knowingly stole their constituents' rights. It was as if Trustees had mugged the beneficiaries of a trust and stolen their inheritance. They were confident of hiding the truth because the 1971 advice (FCO 30/1048 Legal and constitutional implications of UK entry into EEC) could not be published for 30 years. So confident that Heath, to mark the signing of the Treaty of Rome, said in a broadcast to the nation "There are some in this country who fear that, in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified."

In April 1964, Ronald Arthur Biggs and six others were sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for their part in the Great Train Robbery. Mr. Justice Edmund Davies in passing sentence told them it was: "a crime of sordid violence inspired by vast greed."

A WHO report in 2002 classified non-physical violence as violence. Certainly, stealing the birthright of a nation can only be categorised as "a crime of sordid violence inspired by vast greed." Justice Davies was made a Privy Councillor in 1966 and a Law Lord in 1972. During the time he sat as a Law Lord the greatest robbery in British history occurred. The people were robbed of their sovereignty. I can find no record that he spoke against that crime.

The apologists for that crime claim that parliament has passed other laws that limit parliamentary sovereignty - that effectively bind successors. Yes, but all are capable of repeal. However, those that have bound us to the EU were deliberately framed not to be repealed. UK law is no longer supreme and parliament has no right to review or vote on EU edicts. This has been a deliberate abrogation of every individual's sovereign rights. It is a clear breach of contract. Sadly, the reason for this massive betrayal is not as complicated as one might think.

A pro EU Federalist Danish professor Marlene Wind in a 2017 polemic claimed that the British obsession with sovereignty was because the UK has a 'Majoritarian Democracy' as opposed to the EU's 'Legal constitutionalism.' In the latter, parliament is seen as limited by either a constitution, the courts (supranational or national) or international conventions. The British idea of consent and the sovereign right of each citizen to alter law and government through universal 'equal' suffrage runs counter to constitutionalism. Indeed, the two are mutually exclusive. J. L. Talmon's 'Totalitarian democracy' model can best sum up the EU system. A system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

Power is a heady wine. Majoritarianism constrains the elite; constitutionalism empowers them. Giving away the people's sovereignty removes many obstacles for those who see their position as a right, an entitlement. Under the UK system, the elite are supposed to view their office as a privilege that carries an obligation to honestly use their power for the benefit of those they serve. It requires a modesty that is so sadly lacking in many who seek to impose their opinions and alter destiny without consultation or agreement. For the power-hungry, membership of the EU was the answer to their prayers. That so many are prepared to defy the will of the people to maintain their position is overwhelming evidence of an addiction to the heady wine of power. Shamefully, the unelected House of Lords, much of the media, civil service and business organisations are assisting them. All are willing accomplices in seeking to perpetuate the greatest crime in British history.

The current government is both conflicted and incompetent and consequently people are, at last, seeing some of the inner workings of the state. That the government was forced to publish the Attorney General's advice regarding the Irish backstop demonstrates how swindling the people is still the elite's default position as it is still the position of many parliamentarians, the civil service and the judiciary – who regard themselves as the masters, not the servants, of the people. We are faced with an existential crisis. If we fail to leave the EU, we will be subsumed into a Federal EU. Our sovereign rights will be abolished.

With the reopening of Parliament and approaching decisions parliamentarians will be making, we should remind our constituency MPs, that Janus, for whom this month is named, had two faces - not because he was duplicitous, but because he looked to the past and to the future. We have a proud past. It provided us with a better foundation for a more secure future than those nations without our democratic system. It is not too late for duplicitous to abandon their anti-democracy crusade. It is not too late to unite in order to renew freedom and the sovereignty of each individual.

Since the 1970s, successive governments have betrayed the people. Parliament has colluded in that. It is time that they redeemed themselves. Parliamentarians asked the people to decide whether or not to leave the EU. Instead of continuing their betrayal, it is time they accept they are the people's servants and that the question, clearly asked, was clearly answered. If they do not obey, they are pitting parliament against the people.

This is a dangerous tactic and one from which those with even just a shred of democratic belief should recoil.

About the author

Michael Wood dropped out of art school and worked in agriculture until accepted for business training by a major Japanese trading house. Working for major Japanese, Dutch and German firms he was involved in International trade from the mid sixties to his retirement in 2010. His career focus was mainly on agricultural products and he has extensive knowledge of perishables both short sea imports and deep sea exports. He travelled widely and has lived and worked in Nigeria, Ukraine, Central Asia as well as the EU (Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg). He became involved in information technology in the late 90s and was engaged by LM Ericsson to advise on a mobile telephone business model applicable to sparsely populated developing countries in Central Asia.

Prior to retirement he was CFO and GM of a London based manufacturing, warehousing and property company. The manufacturing division sourced raw materials and parts from Italy, UK, China, Taiwan and India.

After retirement he developed disability products with Chinese manufactures and imported them into the UK.

He now lives in London with his wife, a lawyer, and writes on a variety of subjects including disability issues.